I am writing to you to urge you to reconsider you recent ruling on the Nice Way Code “Think Horse” ad.

The ruling appears to contradict current advice given by the Cyclecraft and the Highway Code on road positioning for cyclists and overtaking cyclists.

Your ruling states the following:

“The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form. We told Cycling Scotland that any future ads featuring cyclists should be shown wearing helmets and placed in the most suitable cycling position.”

Could I ask what specifically you believe is wrong with the cycling position shown in this ad? It appears that the cyclist has taken “primary position” as recommended by Cyclecraft.

In the Assessment section of the ruling the ASA makes the following statement

“…under the Highway Code it was recommended as good practice for cyclists to wear helmets. Therefore, we considered that the scene featuring the cyclist on a road without wearing a helmet undermined the recommendations set out in the Highway Code.”

I don’t really wish to debate helmet usage by cyclists, the bigger picture does suggest that the benefits of cycling far outweigh any risks associated with it by a very large margin, however this is not why I have quoted this part of your ruling. I’ve quoted this section because you specifically refer to advice given in the Highway Code

Further on in the Assessment section the ASA make the following statement:

“Furthermore, we were concerned that whilst the cyclist was more than 0.5 metres from the kerb, they appeared to be located more in the centre of the lane when the car behind overtook them and the car almost had to enter the right lane of traffic. Therefore, for those reasons we concluded the ad was socially irresponsible and likely to condone or encourage behaviour prejudicial to health and safety. “ (my emphasis)

Entering the “right lane” (also known as the other side of the road) is also recommended by the Highway code, specifically rule 163 “Give vulnerable road users at least as much space as you would a car”. While the road shown in the ad is actually very wide on most urban roads entering the “right lane of traffic” would almost certainly be necessary to pass a cyclist safely.

So while you have specifically applied advice from the Highway Code on the wearing of helmets you appear to have ignored it in your assessment of overtaking.

Therefore, for those reasons I have concluded your ruling on the ad was socially irresponsible and likely to condone or encourage behaviour prejudicial to health and safety.

I hope in light of this obvious contradiction you will reconsider this ruling. I would also like to ask what cycling experience the adjudication team has? Perhaps in future you would consider using staff members more accustomed to cycling on urban roads.

bencooper - Member
Anyone want to crowdfind a cycling advert, to run in a national newspaper? It'll be a very simple image, with a cyclist riding in the middle of the lane, sans helmet, with one middle finger held aloft

Ad
A TV ad for a campaign promoting safer cycling on the road, stated in the voice-over "Not a lot of people know this but you should treat a cyclist the way you treat a horse ... slow down, treat them with care and give them their space on the road." The final shot showed a young woman cycling down the road whilst the on-screen text stated "SEE CYCLIST THINK HORSE."

Issue
Five complainants challenged whether the ad was irresponsible and harmful, because it showed a cyclist without a helmet or any other safety attire, who was cycling down the middle of the road rather than one metre from the curb.

BCAP Code
1.24.14.4
Response
Cycling Scotland pointed out that wearing a cycling helmet was not a legal requirement in Scotland, but a personal choice for the individual. This they considered was illustrated in the ad, by showing various cyclists with and without helmets.

Cycling Scotland further commented that cycling had a high benefit:disbenefit ratio, even when factoring in injuries and referred to the national cycling charity (CTC) report. Cycling Scotland also referred to their helmet policy, which discussed the possible undesired outcomes of wearing helmets, including limiting uptake of cycling (leading to less physical activity) and influencing a driver’s behaviour to be less careful when interacting on the road.

Regarding the cyclist’s clothing, Cycling Scotland commented that this was to reflect the accessibility of cycling and to help promote it as a viable way to make everyday journeys.

With regards to the cyclist’s positioning, Cycling Scotland stated that given the width of the road featured in the advert, the cyclist was safer riding out past the parking area where they could be clearly visible to other road users. Furthermore, they informed the ASA that the shoot for the advert was supervised by one of their most experienced cycling instructors.

Cycling Scotland referred the ASA to the National Standard for cycling training’s recognised reference source for cycle training, “Cyclecraft”, which identified two clear positions: the first being the primary position, which is the default position for urban roads, placing the cyclist in the centre of the active traffic lane; and the secondary position, placing the cyclist on the left of the primary position, but not less than half a metre from the kerb. In this case, the advertiser commented that the cyclist was not less than half a metre from the parking lane.

In their response, Clearcast reiterated that it was not a legal requirement in Scotland for cyclists to wear helmets. Referring to various scenes in the ad, they also commented that cyclists were shown with and without helmets, and believed this reflected an individual’s preference.

Clearcast stated that the ad was focusing on care and safety in the form of giving space to cyclists on the road, and was communicating a positive message in that respect. Furthermore, they considered that the ad depicted a realistic situation, in that not all cyclists wore helmets. This they considered illustrated that the same care and respect should be given to all cyclists, whether they wore a helmet or not. Furthermore, they considered that the cyclist was clearly positioned on the road and therefore, visible to all motorists.

Clearcast believed that the cyclist's distance from the curb appeared to be around or within one metre, and commented that the final scene only featured one car, which had adequate space to safely overtake the cyclist.

Assessment
Upheld

The ASA acknowledged that the ad was primarily encouraging motorists to take care when driving within the vicinity of cyclists.

We noted that the cyclist in the final scene was not wearing a helmet or any other safety attire, and appeared to be more than 0.5 metres from the parking lane. We also acknowledged that the cyclist was shown in broad daylight on a fairly large lane without any traffic.

We understood that UK law did not require cyclists to wear helmets or cycle at least 0.5 metres from the kerb. However, under the Highway Code it was recommended as good practice for cyclists to wear helmets. Therefore, we considered that the scene featuring the cyclist on a road without wearing a helmet undermined the recommendations set out in the Highway Code. Furthermore, we were concerned that whilst the cyclist was more than 0.5 metres from the kerb, they appeared to be located more in the centre of the lane when the car behind overtook them and the car almost had to enter the right lane of traffic. Therefore, for those reasons we concluded the ad was socially irresponsible and likely to condone or encourage behaviour prejudicial to health and safety.

Action
The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form. We told Cycling Scotland that any future ads featuring cyclists should be shown wearing helmets and placed in the most suitable cycling position.

First of all the Ad isn't actually aimed at cyclists or promoting cycling, it's aimed at changing motorists behaviour, effectively telling them to expect the worst, i.e. for cyclists to be all over the road and not wearing hi-viz or helmets... I mean that is the reality of driving, you will encounter cyclists like the "Beautiful Giant" shown in the last shot (the primary cause of the objection) who are not cowering in the gutter hi-vized and helmeted up...

So in one respect the complaint really should be invalid as it goes against main aim of the Ad... But then the ASA adjudicator has clearly read his charter and the concept of "social irresponsibility" is applied because; "...We understood that UK law did not require cyclists to wear helmets or cycle at least 0.5 metres from the kerb. However, under the Highway Code it was recommended as good practice for cyclists to wear helmets... the ad was socially irresponsible and likely to condone or encourage behaviour prejudicial to health and safety...

Its a fundamental problem with a rather rigid interpretation of their own rules and kind of ignores the context/goals of the advert, they don't feel they can approve the depiction of "socially irresponsible actions" in an advert intended to warn Drivers about those same "socially irresponsible actions" So... :shrugs:

I expect the Bikebiz article was the first recourse sought when Cycling Scotland got a negative ruling, its simply cheaper and easier to try and whip up an indignant storm of cyclists via online media than to water down/re-cut the advert...

Action
The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form. We told Cycling Scotland that any future ads featuring cyclists should be shown wearing helmets and placed in the most suitable cycling position.

They were in a suitable position and I'm a bit concerned about the second sentence there as I see nothing wrong with an idylic image of cycling being shown in that context. Social responsibility requirements at the ASA does not mean the highway code is the most important aspect when considering helmet use vs other social or health considerations, ie the Australia effect.
--without any wish to turn this into the overdone helmet debate--

If having 'suitable safety attire' becomes a requirement for all cycling advertising its not necessarily a good thing. I don't know if this sets any precedent though, or if it's a case-by-case decision.

Just out of curiosity, how many people actually saw this advert on tele? I certainly did not but now it is trending on twitter and in the top 10 most read news stories on the BBC. I wonder if some people are now delighted with the extra, free, publicity!